ok, so i was'nt sure where to post this. so i'll probably double post it somewhere.

i just started on a small term paper for a medieval history course and i'm looking for reputable sources on middle age warfare and tactics. more importantly chivalric code and war ettiquette. i'm trying to show the contrast of two... not a hard task but my sources are limited.i'm realitively versed on the melee aspect of dark age tactics... but as far as group warfare and chivalry goes, i've pretty much going on nothing here.

it is a journal sitei didn't look up anything for you, because I am working on my own paper now. so i am procrastinating on here maybe i have an addiction lol

anyway i am not that strong in the this area, but i know that Richard was not the hero we really think of him to be. He committed what today would be considered horribly war crimes. Which at the time was more acceptable, and both sides of the crusades were resposible for horrible attrocities.

The crusades themselves were a waste of time and people's lives.

As for chivalric code and war ettiquette, these things are not as important as we would like to think. The idea of any war was to win. Many times people did not play by the "rules" many times it was more like

Here are some example:Knights of the olden days, were by no means the knights of belegarth.The knights of Belegarth concern themselves with honor and many do not backstab. back then a knight would act civilized in court but as, my professor said, once they left court it wouldn't bother them to rape a pretty twelve year old girl when the went through a villagealso burn down the village and take what they wanted

another example of not following a chivarlic code was William Wallace. I dont mean watch Braveheart, as a rule of thumb, if Mel Gibson is doing it, the historical accuracy is low. With one exception, We Were Soliders, but I am getting off of topic. Back on the chivarlic code, William Wallce, for example he did not follow the code. At a battle when the English were beginning to line up for what we call a line battle. However the English soldiers had to cross a bridge first. Things were going to according to the code, they were crossing the bridge and lineing up in formation. The problem was that Wallace's army was outnumbered and out gunned. He knew he was going to lose unless he did something dramatic. What he did is while the English were still getting in formation and crossing the bridge, and a good portion of the army was still on the other side of the bridge. He gave the order to charge. To sum it up, chaos occured the English soldiers and the archers from Wales were slaughtered. The code states that he should have waited till all of the soldiers and everybody were lined up. But a violation of the code was the only way for him to win, and not get slaughtered himself.

in Japan, many of the books written about Bushido were written during an extended period of peace in Japan. and many samuari had become lazy and bored with no war. So many of the books were written as a way to keep the Samuari out of trouble. Here is a quote from a research paper i did on Bushido last summer

"This is odd, because these books were written about the same time, but neither one of these men had seen combat. They were both alive during one of Japan’s most peaceful times. Tsunetomo Yamaoto, was born 1659 and died in 1719 , Taira Shigesuke was born 1630 and lived until 1730."

This is one of the most peaceful times in Japans history, and many things happened during this period. Also the idea of dying was important is sort of absurd, and research has also found that Japanese warriors would retreat so they could fight another day.

If you still need help let me know, I am sorry if a lot of this is to late.